No labor pain no sin in her

[adolfo123]

Technically, the Church teaches that this verse is talking about the joy that Zion proclaims when a new person turns to God, essentially how the entire Body of Christ rejoices when a new person converts and obeys the Gospel call. This also fits with the passage. If you read on, it is talking about “her”, Zion, God’s people. It goes on to talk about spreading prosperity to her, and wealth. It then talks about God’s people being nursed by her, and comforted by her. This is not necessarily a prophecy.

Sorry, but no worky worky. Not in this case anyways.

that is one fold of the scripture in its context… but also the verse can be looks as a messianic prophecy for it says “male child” in the original language and is one child not many offsprings … H2145
זכר
zâkâr
zaw-kawr’
From H2142; properly remembered, that is, a male (of man or animals, as being the most noteworthy sex): - X him, male, man (child, -kind).

so the verse is also talking about the Christ child in one fold of the text… so the woman having the child is Mary … i got this view of it from www.scripturecatholic.com

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-II

:"Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ."

 

[adolfo123]

:yup:

Mary’s Virgin Birth of Jesus simply means a birth initiated without sin – born of the Holy Spirit.

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said: I shall give you intense pain in childbearing, you will give birth to your children in pain. Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.

but that is a fallen woman not Mary for sense isa. 66:7 TALKS ABOUT A MALE CHILD AND THE MOTHER TO THIS CHILD HAS NOT PAIN IN THE BIRTHING OF HIM THE CHRIST …

FROM SCRIPTURECATHOLIC.COM:

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

 

[kobudodave]

but that is a fallen woman not Mary for sense isa. 66:7 TALKS ABOUT A MALE CHILD AND THE MOTHER TO THIS CHILD HAS NOT PAIN IN THE BIRTHING OF HIM THE CHRIST …

FROM SCRIPTURECATHOLIC.COM:

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

I hope you do realize though, that scripturecatholic.com, while being a good source at times, does not always reflect the correct interpreted views of the Catholic Church? It is a site developed by a Catholic apologist. Catholic apologists are not free of error. Just yesterday, on CA Radio, I heard an apologist answer a question with a heresy. They are not perfect.

All I did was point out that what you say is a teaching that the Church neither endorses or rejects. So it cannot be definitively used to answer this question.

Sin does not cause labor pain. Original Sin brought about the effect, but does not cause it. You cut down a rain forest, you will have to live with the consequences forever. But just because a future generation didn’t cut it down, doesn’t mean they are exempt from the effects. But they are exempt from the blame of being guilty of cutting it down, if they don’t follow in the footsteps of the previous generation that did cut it down.

 

[Esquire0130]

Mary was exempt from original sin. Original sin is what caused women to have pain from childbirth. Therefore, Mary could not have had labor pains when she delivered Jesus because she was free from original sin. I don’t think that Jesus was born in the natural way (vaginally) since Mary is ever-virgin. But, I don’t plan to explain why.

Pax,
SHW

Poor Mary!

Carefully read Genesis 3:16. It says, “I will *intensify * the pangs of your childbrearing…” So, the pangs were *increased * by the sentence of God following Original Sin, not caused by it.

I am certain that our Magisterium has taught that the Revelation 12 wailing woman is Mary.

So, Mary experienced labor pains.

 

[adolfo123]

Poor Mary!

Carefully read Genesis 3:16. It says, “I will *intensify * the pangs of your childbrearing…” So, the pangs were *increased * by the sentence of God following Original Sin, not caused by it.

I am certain that our Magisterium has taught that the Revelation 12 wailing woman is Mary.

So, Mary experienced labor pains.

Mary is the new eve… sinless … the curse is one the fallen woman etc… Isa. 66:7 is a prophecy of the mother of the male child :Isa 66:7 "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.

 

[Esquire0130]

Mary is the new eve… sinless … the curse is one the fallen woman etc… Isa. 66:7 is a prophecy of the mother of the male child :Isa 66:7 "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.

These claims that Mary’s parturition was painless not only ignore Revelation 12, but they are also based on a misconception that her dormition at her assumption did not involve “death,” which makes Marianists look for parallel relief from labor pain.

In fact, in his encyclical declaring the doctrine of the Assumption, Pius favorably cites 4 or 5 sources declaring that Mary “died.”

Mary died.

If she wasn’t relieved of death, why should she have been relieved of the enhanced labor pain coming out of Original Sin? So, though Mary was relieved of the stain of Original Sin, she was not relieved of the physical consequences.

John, who wrote Revelation, surely knew better than anyone what happened at Jesus’ birth – he cared for Mary for years.

 

[SHW]

Poor Mary!

Carefully read Genesis 3:16. It says, “I will *intensify * the pangs of your childbrearing…” So, the pangs were *increased * by the sentence of God following Original Sin, not caused by it.

I am certain that our Magisterium has taught that the Revelation 12 wailing woman is Mary.

So, Mary experienced labor pains.

Before the fall, there was no pain or suffering or death. God was emphasizing her new status of “mortality” and its consequences of pain, suffering, and death by using the word “intensify.” Exaggeration is very common in Semitic speaking. Another example of this Semitic manner of speaking is “call no man father” and “if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it into the fire.” None of these exaggerations should be taken literally. This manner of speaking is for emphasis only.

“The woman is depicted by features that can apply to Israel, the Blessed Virgin and the Church. This passage becomes clearer and more meaningful in the light of Revelation as a whole. For example, St. Luke, in his account of the Annunciation, sees Mary as representing the faithful remnant of Israel: the angel salutes her with the greeting given in Zephaniah 3:14-15 to the daughter of Zion (cf. the note on Lk 1:26-38). But the sacred text of the Apocalypse is open to an interpretation of the Woman as a direct reference to the Blessed Virgin who, as a mother, shares in the pain of Calvary (see Lk 2:35) and who was earlier prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 as a “sign” (cf. Mt 1:22-23). St. Paul in Galatians 4:26 already sees in a** woman, Sarah, an allegory of the Church our Mother**; and, in non-canonical Jewish writings of the same period as this book, the community is not infrequently personified as a woman.”*
(*from Navarre New Testament)

Mary did not have to die since she was free from Original Sin. However, she desired to imitate her Divine Son in every way possible, and so she chose to die in order to most perfectly “follow” her Son who died for us.

 

[Esquire0130]

“For no king has any different origin or birth; but one is the entry into life for all, and in one same way they leave it.” Wisdom 7:5-6.

Jesus was a king; therefore Jesus’ birth was like any other.

 

[SHW]

“For no king has any different origin or birth; but one is the entry into life for all, and in one same way they leave it.” Wisdom 7:5-6.

Jesus was a king; therefore Jesus’ birth was like any other.

Jesus was born of the “seed” of Abraham and the ovum of Mary the Blessed Virgin, just as any other human child. A sperm and an ovum are needed for conception. He originated just as any other human child. Jesus was born. He left the womb. In order to grow up and become an adult He had to leave the womb alive. When a person leaves the womb alive or dead, this person is called “born.” Either “born” or “stillborn.” King David died; so did Jesus.

I see no contradiction between the Book of Wisdom and Jesus’ birth. Jesus’ birth, however, was miraculous. There was no sex act involved. His mother was a virgin. There needn’t be any pain or dividing of tissues either in this miraculous birth. God is God and He does wondrous deeds. Mary did not need to have labor pains nor did Jesus have to be born by coming down a birth canal in order to fulfill Wisdom’s words.

 

[Esquire0130]

Jesus was born of the “seed” of Abraham and the ovum of Mary the Blessed Virgin, just as any other human child. A sperm and an ovum are needed for conception. He originated just as any other human child. Jesus was born. He left the womb. In order to grow up and become an adult He had to leave the womb alive. When a person leaves the womb alive or dead, this person is called “born.” Either “born” or “stillborn.” King David died; so did Jesus.

I see no contradiction between the Book of Wisdom and Jesus’ birth. Jesus’ birth, however, was miraculous. There was no sex act involved. His mother was a virgin. There needn’t be any pain or dividing of tissues either in this miraculous birth. God is God and He does wondrous deeds. Mary did not need to have labor pains nor did Jesus have to be born by coming down a birth canal in order to fulfill Wisdom’s words.

If you see no contradiction between Jesus’ birth and the birth of all other kings, then the Church’s teaching in Wisdom 7:5-6 is irrelevant to you, and so is anything else Scripture says, I think. So, I will try no longer to persuade you with Scripture. God bless you, my friend.

 

[Esquire0130]

I always felt that in their zeal to elevate Mary, Marianists were dehumanizing Jesus. Platonizing Mary to the point that we declare Mary’s amniotic sac unbreached so that Jesus must come out of her in a way that violates the rules of God’s nature and requires that Jesus become a spirit when He comes into the world makes Him “non-human” at a critical part of the human life process, and tempts prospective converts to think, “Hmmmm. He wasn’t actually ‘born.’ And, if He was a painless, miraculous spirit coming *** into*** the world, did He perhaps not suffer in leaving it? Is that suffering business a lie? Did He not actually purchase grace?”

Marianists can try to repair the damage they do by saying, “He was born, born, born, born, born, and He’s human, human, human, human, human.” But that won’t fix it. As far as I can see, Marianists violate the Church’s inspired Scripture repeatedly. Wisdom 7:5-6 actually says that His birth is like that of other kings, as is His death (traumatic). The Presentation verses tell us about Mary’s sacrifice to inform us, “She bled. Therefore, she breached.” Revelation 12, by John who took care of Mary, says that she wailed aloud in pain to give birth. It could not be plainer. No interpretation necessary. The gospels repeat again and again and again and again that Jesus was “born.” The Old Testament foreshadows Christ with the image of the “firstborn male who opens the womb,” where implying that He “beamed down” out of Mary is clearly a way of not being “born,” so that the miraculous birth concept actually really does begin to sever Jesus from Messianic prophecies.

 

[kobudodave]

Esquire, I think you have the right idea. I will stand firm and say that Jesus WAS born, and Mary DID have labor pains, because who wouldn’t?

And to say that Mary was FREE from the effects of Original Sin is crazy. Had she lived to be very old, she surely would have died from her old age, just as everyone else did. If she was immortal, as some of you claim she would have been by not having the effects of Original Sin, and death wasn’t a problem for her, what would be the need for John to take charge of her care? She was obviously in her 50’s, and getting older. Immortality would allow her to have been ageless, just as Adam and Eve would have been had they not eaten of the fruit from the Tree of Good and Evil.

None of us are “free” from those effects. We are all concupiscent. Christ was not “free” from the effects of Original Sin. He was TEMPTED! What good is temptation for us if we don’t have the ability to sin anyways? Christ had ALL the same dispositions as we did. That is why he is our example! He DIED! That is surely part of the consequences as well! And why would Mary be any different?

Obviously Mary had pain while giving birth. Obviously, Jesus was born of a natural birth, just as ANY human would be. Obviously, Mary was tempted, just as Christ was, and Just as we are. Obviously Jesus died, and so could Mary also have died. Jesus received no special treatment on Earth as far as human thought and emotion went. Jesus cried, he hungered, he drew breath, he had to go to the bathroom, he had love and compassion. Part of emotion is self pleasure. Jesus did not want to suffer. He did not want to die. He did not want to be separated from the Father for ANY period of time. That is self want, and self pleasure, yet Jesus looked past all that and saw us! He was every bit as human as you and I. And so was Mary. Mary also wouldn’t have received any special treatment.

So, did Mary experience birthing pains? Yes. Was she able to sin? Yes. Was she able to die? Yes. If it was important for us to know otherwise, the Bible would allude to this, or the Magesterium would let us know. These have nothing to do with the message that Christ brought to us, or our salvation, or even how to live our lives. So it really isn’t all that important. We should just let it go and get passed it. We should stop trying to place Mary at the same level as our Lord Jesus, and give him all glory and honor and praise, for he is our sacrifice, the only perfect Lamb that took on all our sins so that we might be free and join with Him in everlasting glory in Heaven.

 

[adolfo123]

These claims that Mary’s parturition was painless not only ignore Revelation 12, but they are also based on a misconception that her dormition at her assumption did not involve “death,” which makes Marianists look for parallel relief from labor pain.

In fact, in his encyclical declaring the doctrine of the Assumption, Pius favorably cites 4 or 5 sources declaring that Mary “died.”

Mary died.

If she wasn’t relieved of death, why should she have been relieved of the enhanced labor pain coming out of Original Sin? So, though Mary was relieved of the stain of Original Sin, she was not relieved of the physical consequences.

John, who wrote Revelation, surely knew better than anyone what happened at Jesus’ birth – he cared for Mary for years.

revelation 12 is symbolic if the church and Mary … Mary did not have pain about having jesus… but she has pain at having us …Luk 2:35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed."

 

[Esquire0130]

Scripture speaks at two levels according to the Church – the plaintext level and the sensus plenior level.

The wailing woman of Revelation doesn’t symbolize Mary. She IS Mary. It says that he gives birth to the child who will rule the world with an iron rod. That’s Christ.

I don’t think that we have a right to sever the woman from her wailing.

 

[SHW]

If you see no contradiction between Jesus’ birth and the birth of all other kings, then the Church’s teaching in Wisdom 7:5-6 is irrelevant to you, and so is anything else Scripture says, I think. So, I will try no longer to persuade you with Scripture. God bless you, my friend.

“The woman is depicted by features that can apply to Israel, the Blessed Virgin and the Church. This passage becomes clearer and more meaningful in the light of Revelation as a whole. For example, St. Luke, in his account of the Annunciation, sees Mary as representing the faithful remnant of Israel: the angel salutes her with the greeting given in Zephaniah 3:14-15 to the daughter of Zion (cf. the note on Lk 1:26-38). But the sacred text of the Apocalypse is open to an interpretation of the Woman as a direct reference to the Blessed Virgin who, as a mother, shares in the pain of Calvary (see Lk 2:35) and who was earlier prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 as a “sign” (cf. Mt 1:22-23). St. Paul in Galatians 4:26 already sees in a woman, Sarah, an allegory of the Church our Mother; and, in non-canonical Jewish writings of the same period as this book, the community is not infrequently personified as a woman.”*
(*from Navarre New Testament)

We will agree to disagree about our own individual interpretations. The above quotation is from a reliable teaching source of the Catholic Church. I put their thoughts (interpretations) above my own interpretation.

Esquire0130: “then the Church’s teaching in Wisdom 7:5-6 is irrelevant to you, and so is anything else Scripture says, I think. So, I will try no longer to persuade you with Scripture.”

Condescension is not an admirable trait.

Pax,
SHW

 

[AlegreFe]

:yup:

:nope:

Beautiful:

Mary’s Virgin Birth of Jesus simply means a birth initiated without sin – born of the Holy Spirit.

That’s NOT what “virgin birth” means. The virgin birth of Jesus is literal. Mary remained a virgin before, DURING & after the birth of Jesus.

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said: I shall give you intense pain in childbearing, you will give birth to your children in pain. Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.

The woman in Gen 3:16 is Eve not Mary. The woman in Gen 3:15 is Mary.

Beautiful:

Did Mary feel the discomfort of labor/birth? Yes

NO!

 

[AlegreFe]

Obviously Mary had pain while giving birth. Obviously, Jesus was born of a natural birth, just as ANY human would be.

From where do you get your source to back up your claims? It is NOT obvious that Mary had pain while giving birth. The birth was a VIRGIN birth. What do you think that means?

kobudodave:

Obviously, Mary was tempted, just as Christ was, and Just as we are. Obviously Jesus died, and so could Mary also have died. Jesus received no special treatment on Earth as far as human thought and emotion went. Jesus cried, he hungered, he drew breath, he had to go to the bathroom, he had love and compassion. Part of emotion is self pleasure.

WHAT?! Only we would want “self pleasure!” Jesus had no part of that!! “Self pleasure” is like elevating yourself. Although Jesus was God, He did not elevate Himself in that manner, so as to have “self pleasure” as you put it.

kobudodave:

So, did Mary experience birthing pains? Yes.

From where are you getting this FALSE information?!

kobudodave:

Was she able to sin? Yes.

Someone who is FULL of GRACE is not “able to sin.”

kobudodave:

If it was important for us to know otherwise, the Bible would allude to this,

Now come on, you know there is no such thing as “Sola Scriptura.”

kobudodave:

or the Magesterium would let us know.

The Church already let us know.

kobudodave:

These have nothing to do with the message that Christ brought to us, or our salvation, or even how to live our lives. So it really isn’t all that important.

Mary is not important?!

kobudodave:

We should just let it go and get passed it. We should stop trying to place Mary at the same level as our Lord Jesus, and give him all glory and honor and praise, for he is our sacrifice, the only perfect Lamb that took on all our sins so that we might be free and join with Him in everlasting glory in Heaven.

No one is putting Mary at the same level as Jesus. Mary would never do that to herself so why should we? I myself as a Catholic give all glory & honor to God! But I honor Mary just as Jesus does. If Mary is good enough for Jesus, she’s good enough for me!

 

[Koopa]

Let’s remain patient and considerate, here.

To be honest, I don’t think it really matters either way. Whether or not Mary had labor pains is not, I’m pretty sure, defined by the Church. Why would the Church speak on it, anyway? It is not essential to our faith as it does not affect our faith or morals. As long as we accept the Immaculate Conception and the teachings of the Church, it really doesn’t matter what else we believe about the little things. We are allowed to have our own opinion on whether Mary had pain during birth just as we are allowed to have our own opinion on whether or not Mary died (although I would trust the opinion of the church leaders who suggest that she probably died), and just as we are allowed to have our own opinion on whether Jesus was left- or right-handed.

Both sides have pretty good cases, so let’s just remember what is important and realize it’s not necessary that we believe either way.

 

[AlegreFe]

Let’s remain patient and considerate, here.

To be honest, I don’t think it really matters either way. Whether or not Mary had labor pains is not, I’m pretty sure, defined by the Church. Why would the Church speak on it, anyway? It is not essential to our faith as it does not affect our faith or morals. As long as we accept the Immaculate Conception and the teachings of the Church, it really doesn’t matter what else we believe about the little things. We are allowed to have our own opinion on whether Mary had pain during birth just as we are allowed to have our own opinion on whether or not Mary died (although I would trust the opinion of the church leaders who suggest that she probably died), and just as we are allowed to have our own opinion on whether Jesus was left- or right-handed.

Both sides have pretty good cases, so let’s just remember what is important and realize it’s not necessary that we believe either way.

I don’t agree with you at all. Of course it’s important. Anything that has to do with Mary is very important. If it has to do with Mary, it has to do with Jesus. If it has to do with Jesus, it has to do with the Holy Spirit and also with God the Father. If it has to do with Mary, it has to do with the Holy Spirit. They all go together. No, not in the way that you might think I mean. Mary is not God or a goddess. But where ever Mary is, there is the Holy Spirit! And where ever Mary is, there is Jesus! And we all know that where ever Jesus & the Holy Spirit are, there is God the Father.

In Genesis 3:15 it clearly states that Mary is without sin because there is enmity between her & the serpent who of course is the devil. Then right after that God specifies to the woman, who is EVE, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.” He didn’t say that to Mary because He already specified that she is without sin and therefore without physical pain from child birth. But she received a different kind of pain that is far worse than any physical pain and that is of her soul being pierced by a sword. She is Queen of Martyrs.

 

[PeterK]

I understand the ‘death threat’ referred to in the ultimatum from God to Adam to refer to ‘spiritual’ death not physical death. Surely, death existed in the animal kingdom before the fall. Was it to be that not even an amoeba would die? Man wouldn’t even accidentally step on an ant, ever? Wouldn’t some of the plants have to be killed to be eaten? Further, directly after the fall expulsion occurs not death - that won’t happen for over 900 years for Adam. So, it seems to me, for the ‘death’ ultimatum to have originally been understood to be spiritual in nature. This also correlates with Christ’s sacrifice. Physical death was not eradicated with the crucifixion or resurrection, overcome - yes - in terms that it is not permanent, but not removed as something we must all go through.

This understanding renders the did-Mary-die-or-not argument pointless.
So, yes, before her assumption into heaven, Mary died.
And of course, it’s quite possible Jesus out of love for his mother may have allowed otherwise - totally possible - but not probable and not supported in scripture.

I also believe pain, thorns and thistles existed before the fall. Man in his enlightened preternatural state would not have been bothered by these physical ailments as he tilled the soil because he would have had an enlightened understanding of their existence in accordance with God’s will and plan. Work existed before the fall. Work can be painful. The non-technologically-advanced work of ancient man would have been very painful by our standards. Because of the fall man will not be able to understand or make sense out of pain and suffering. Christ did fix this aspect of the fall. Pain and suffering can now be an offering to God in reparation for sin.

This understanding makes the did-Mary-experience-pain-or-not argument pointless.
So, yes, Mary experienced pain in bringing Christ into the world.
And of course, it’s quite possible Jesus out of love for his mother may have allowed otherwise - totally possible - but not probable and not supported in scripture.

Hope this helped.
Peter